
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
In this episode we discuss the case of Hemphill v. New York, where the Supreme Court held that an accused did not waive his right to confront an absent witness when he offered evidence that implied the absent witness was the true perpetrator of the offense.
We then discuss how to respond when your witness refuses to remember a fact of consequence despite having their memory refreshed.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
In this episode we discuss the case of Hemphill v. New York, where the Supreme Court held that an accused did not waive his right to confront an absent witness when he offered evidence that implied the absent witness was the true perpetrator of the offense.
We then discuss how to respond when your witness refuses to remember a fact of consequence despite having their memory refreshed.

90,932 Listeners

43,818 Listeners

228,694 Listeners

38,800 Listeners

26,224 Listeners

153,509 Listeners

1,066 Listeners

1,942 Listeners

112,200 Listeners

56,496 Listeners

15,863 Listeners

26,623 Listeners

45 Listeners

22 Listeners

619 Listeners